THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.7 In a Resolution,8 dated February 27, 2017, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In his Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief,9 dated April 5, 2017, accused-appellant manifested that he was adopting his appellant's brief filed before the CA as his supplemental brief. In its Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief,10 dated April 12, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) stated that it was no longer filing a supplemental brief, there being no significant transaction, occurrence or event that happened since the filing of the appellee's brief. The Court's Ruling The appeal lacks merit. Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 provides: (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; [Emphasis supplied] chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary As stated above, when the victim of rape or acts of lasciviousness is below twelve (12) years old, the offender shall be prosecuted under the RPC, provided that the penalty for lascivious conduct shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12.11 Moreover, under Article 266-B of the RPC, there is qualified rape when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.12 On the other hand, acts of lasciviousness under the RPC has the following elements: that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; that it is done by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and that the offended party is another person of either sex.13 After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court finds that accused-appellant is guilty of qualified rape and acts of lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.